Monday, 17 November 2014

18 November 2014

The case of
Phillip John Smith has raised many questions which are now the subject of a
number of inquiries so it is therefore imprudent to be commenting too
specifically about it before these have been completed. However, it does raise
broader issues regarding individual privacy in age of increasingly joined-up
government.

As a constituency
MP, I am struck constantly by the number of people I see who genuinely assume
that their basic information is already readily accessible by a range of
government agencies. Moreover, they seem somewhat surprised – and in some cases
become quite agitated (“I have already given that information to such and such
a government agency”) – when asked to provide it again. They not only expect
their information to have been passed on, but seem to think that is acceptable.

But, by way of
contrast, people appear far more concerned at a global level about the sharing
of their personal information and the implication that nothing is private any
more, and that their every communication, indeed activity, is monitored in some
way by an increasingly inquisitive state. And all this is occurring against a
backdrop of a communications revolution which is making the capacity to obtain
and share information greater day by day, and where the whole process of
government is increasingly technologically driven.

This apparent
contradiction has particular implications for New Zealand. We are at the
forefront of nations when it comes to joined-up government services, and New
Zealanders are increasingly taken with the idea of doing their business with
government – like paying their taxes, or renewing their passports – on-line,
and at a time of their convenience. They like the freedom new circumstances are
now providing, and are pushing the government to do more in that space.

So when a case
like Smith arises people properly want to know why the relevant agencies
did not have access to all the relevant information at the earliest
opportunity, and as a matter of course. Our lack of tolerance for Smith’s
behaviour is understandable, and we have some lessons to learn from what has
happened to ensure there are no repeats.

Now, a number of
challenges lie within all of this. The information technology explosion has
only just begun, and it would be foolish to think otherwise. Today’s challenges
are likely to seem miniscule to those that lie ahead.

The potential
advantages of joined-up government are great – particularly to the individual –
but so too are the risks. Information sharing is the way of the future, but it
needs to be balanced by ensuring that our privacy and official information
legislation, and official functions like those of the Ombudsman and the Privacy
Commissioner are kept fit for purpose to ensure they can effectively protect
the individual from any Orwellian risks inherent in the expansion of joined-up
government. The balance between information sharing to enhance people’s lives,
and information sharing to control them is a fine one, demanding constant vigilance.
There is, after all, now no turning back.

1 comment:

I have pondered this dilemma since the news broke about Smith. It is going to be challenging indeed to balance security with right to privacy. I think people would prefer security in O.F. more than privacy. This will be mean sharing for security being paramount [Passports being one very concerned issue].

The timing of this matter is also in line with concerns about Foreign Fighters passports etc.